Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Review

The Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 looks an awful lot like its predecessor, the GH3, but don't let that familiarity cloud the fact that this is one of the most capable stills/video cameras we've ever seen. Panasonic's message about listening to professional videographers is also familiar but the extent to which they're catered-for is unpredented on a camera with such a mass-market price tag.

Just like its predecessor, the GH4 wraps its sealed magnesium alloy body around a 16MP Four Thirds sensor. But that shouldn't be taken to mean that the GH4 is a minor update. The most striking difference is that the GH4 can capture 4K footage (both in the DCI 4K and UHD 4K resolutions), but the extent to which the GH4 supports a professional workflow is arguably just as significant.

The stills photographer using the GH4 benefits from a number of performance and usability improvements. Most obvious is a more capable shutter which can fire as quickly as 1/8000th seconds and syncs with flashes at up to 1/250th of a second. Continuous shooting is boosted to 12 frames per second, 7.5fps with continuous focus. Focus tracking should also improve, thanks to Panasonic's 'depth-from-defocus' (DFD) technology which attempts to assess how out-of-focus the lens is, based on profiles of how the company's lenses render out-of-focus regions.

But, as mentioned before, it's the video capabilities and the supporting features that make the GH4 such a striking camera. In addition to the 4K, the GH4 also includes focus peaking, two zebra settings (to highlight over-exposed regions) and control over Master Pedestal (black level) and luminance scale (16-255, 16-235 or 0-255). The camera can also generate color bars (for calibration) and the ability to express shutter speed and ISO in terms of shutter angle and gain. Not all of these additions will be useful to everyone (in fact I'd wager that nobody will make use of all the new features), but, whether your background is stills or video, the GH4 is likely to offer plenty of tools to support your video making.

Headline Features

16MP Four Thirds Sensor

4K recording - DCI 'Cinema 4K' (4096 x 2160) or UHD 4K (3840 x 2160)

2.36m dot OLED viewfinder

1.04m dot OLED rear screen

1/8000th maximum shutter speed

1/250th flash sync speed

Continuous shooting 12fps, 7pfs with focus tracking

As well as the electronic viewfinder, the GH4's rear screen has been upgraded, now offering a 720x480 pixel output from 1.04m dots. The screen is still a touchscreen and makes more extensive use of this feature. Thankfully it's kept the rear-screen-as-focus-point-controller feature that helped make the GH3 so nice to shoot with.

Although a host of features (such as the focus peaking, zebra and shutter angle display) have been added, the GH4's user interface is essentially identical to that of the GH3. Existing users will be able to pick up the camera and start shooting immediately. If you're in that position, we'd recommend spending a little time going through the menus to make sure you don't miss-out on what could prove to be useful features.

The GH4's price is essentially unchanged from that of its predecessor, despite all the additional features. What has changed is the addition of an extra series of connectors on the base of the GH4 that allow its connection to an external module that adds industry-standard 3G-SDI and XLR connectors to the camera.

Perhaps he meant the make of the m43 sensor rather than its physical size. The "boss of Sony" might be unsettled that a Panasonic-made sensor, and not one from Sony, is at the heart of this great camera. :p

so ..when its bigger than the 1 inch size ..you lean on the size as an aspect..but not regarding the APS being bigger than it ??

faster processing ???? invent much ?

IQ ..the 4/3 is closer in size to the the 1 inch than it is to the APS ..and no ..the IQ is not the same..in fact....from what i have seen if any i would prefer the superb fz1000 1 inch solution over this 1700$ ( a7s price ) camera.

as for ISO ..you can always go to DXO to see all about iso and DR and color richness..you know..that stuff that matters to people who actually use these level of cameras and actually edit their photos .

4/3 is a doomed effort ..and them leaning on a video feature to sell a still camera only proves it .

i dont need to pay 1700$ on top of pricey little amount of lenses when i can get the fz1000 instead..

and if i want more i can get the A6000 for a 1/3 of that price with about double the iso ability , fps ..and what not.

LOL ..what you said basically its like me saying that two guys making 1% profit on investment have done the same profit..forgetting that tiny detail about what was their initial investment . ..so 1% on 100$ is a bit different than 1% on 1million . as for camera..i owned the gh2 ..i dumped the gh2 . i dont need a hacked video camera just for bragging rights..i need a good system with good lenses and good response time , and good iso ,not to mention i edit a lot .

the m43 will die out cause of couple of reasons . 1.1 inch sensor is much more cost effective and still allowes for fixed lenses.2.currently most mirrorless line with a bigger sensor costs less and give more..so no brain needed about this.

feel free to spend your money as you wish ..i care not ..but at least you can answer with valid facts and not childish answers...if you cant you can go back to school .

If you do that much edit, you probably just started photography, because almost all old sensors are worse than m43, so I guess photography started for you around 2012 since before it was not possible to get acceptable photos.Don't worry, you'll learn how to shoot eventually?Your reason why m43 will die could be exactly the same reason why ff will die, or apsc, and all our photos will be taken with camera phones.Most mirrorless cameras cost less and give more ? More what ? Video ? C-AF ? Lenses ? Size ?

Could not agree more, except which of the nice kit to commit too. Still sitting on the fence ... but I think I will get there spring next year, and then be happy for quite some time (not that I am not happy just now) :-)

A serious shooter has a grim face and is weighed down by all the equipment he carries (it is always a he). I guess the likes of Kirk Tuck and Michael Reichmann are not serious shooters (as both are known to use GH4's)? Poor lens inventory? There are currently over 60 lenses in the native mount and of course countless others that can be adapted. See http://hazeghi.org/mft-lenses.html

Oh, the old-as-time Argentinian-Brazilian love/hate relationship. Actually, the rivalry runs deeper in the Argentinian side, I suspect. Anyway for s Spanish speaking soccer fan, this soccer/camera brand rivalry overlapping on DPR is as priceless as it is unexpected.

I suspect too. When you hear what the Argentinians sing, it is them that never will forget something that happened in 1990 (cannigia). Since then, Brasil had two WC wins and I think one WC final. Argentina only had one final and zero semi's....It is telltale that argentinians have nothing more to remember than one time a win over Brasil in a WC 24 years ago...Camera rivalry etc...it is with tongiue in the cheeck. Nothing serious, other than Ruy is talking some nonsense to my mind.

RichRMA,You may be missing the point. When some people talk about lack of lenses, they don't mean that they need a dozen lenses in their kit. They mean that key lenses that they or others often tend to use (for example, 55-300mm) are missing from the product line. (And yes, I know that 55-300mm is not in the range you mentioned, but it's a lens that I know and use--with a Pentax--and I don't feel like researching the lineup to provide the best possible theoretical example in some other range.)

I'm still somewhat flummoxed by DPR's obsession with performance when compared to a full-frame camera. Most people will be weighing up whether a GH4 is worth the extra expense over something like a Canon APSC. That's where the value of the GH4 ultimately lies, and I think that comparison would be far more useful to the masses.

Filmmakers made up their minds regarding the GH4/A7s many moons ago. They don't wait 12 months for DPR to release their review.

Realistically only a sprinkling of photographers would give serious consideration between an A7s & GH4. If someone wants a FF camera they'll look at FF cameras. If video is important they'll accordingly weigh their options from within that segment. The same goes for people after a crop sensor.

DPR have compared crop sensor cameras against crop sensor cameras for stills since time immemorial. Why is it that this comparison is suddenly no longer relevant when video enters the equation? The new compact LX100 can shoot 4K, is it now to be measured against FF cameras as a consequence?

I think DPR missed an opportunity to address concerns facing a far larger proportion of their readership. Photography forums are inundated with the same questions from mobile phone upgraders and prospective ILC owners:

"I'm upgrading for travel; size & weight are of paramount consideration; I want exceptional stills & video in a single package; what camera for me?"

There's a myriad of relevant questions facing everyday photographers that DPR have chosen to overlook, instead heading off on this obtuse tangent from a "filmmaker's" perspective that almost no one has any real interest in. It's an opportunity lost and I feel DPR have failed to grasp who their audience is on this one.

First reason is the A7s does not shoot 4k. Nobody will buy an external recorder except the pros who deliver to clients and make money, and they are a minority amongst dpreview readers.Other reason being a different still shooters target. GH4 is a much faster camera, A7s is a much higher IQ camera.Other reason being overall size and weight of the system.

Useless discussions. When you know what you want, you know what you want. Comparing these cameras or asking which to get tells me that those people have no ideea what and how they shoot.

Does the LX1000 cost 1700? You have two serious cameras, the same price both touting 4k as primary feature so they are going to be compared. There is no conspiracy here. I've actually seen many a looong discussion on video forums with people trying to decide between these two so its really not that uncalled for.

Why ? For me is very simple. I took a look at the LX100. I shoot primary portraits, casual landscapes,and rarely daylight sports. Compared to my other m43 gears, the LX100 is much worse for landscapes (due to lower res and softer lens), too short fl for portraits and sports. Decision made in the next 10 minutes after the camera was launched.

I was just responding to Demon why the LX100 is not a good example. They're being compared because they're the same price, category and both are the first serious cameras with 4k. I'm really not taking sides but I think its quite logical to compare the two as its what most people actually want.

I disagree Zdman. If you frequent photography forums you'll see the GH4 get a mention whenever someone touts video performance as an important consideration. However it's extraordinarily rare for them to say they have a budget of $4000 and are happy to carry around an external recorder to access the 4K video (as required by the A7s).

It is far more common for them to be considering other enthusiast level crop sensor cameras. This is the market segment for the GH4. The camera just so happens to be a hybrid and shoot internal 4K. It's not a FF competitor!

Those people will come to DPR looking for enlightenment as to the advantages of the GH4 over cameras such as the Olympus EM-10, Sony A6000, and CaNikon's enthusiast offerings. Yet there's nothing here for them. Certainly no comparison of video performance to assist with making an informed decision.

Why isn't there a comparison of DFD performance to phase or on-sensor phase detect? Why no comparison of video image quality or low light performance between these direct competitors? Why no explanation of this new 4K photo mode or the quality of the stills it provides?

It's all a great mystery. Unfortunately DPR have decided for us that the only people interested in the GH4 are those who want the size & bulk of a FF camera system and are prepared to carry external recorders and spend upwards of $4k on their system. I respectfully think they're mistaken.

"Why isn't there a comparison of DFD performance to phase or on-sensor phase detect?" This is done all the time — don't people care when mirrorless can fully replace dSLRs? When people are in the market looking for a serious camera for 4k video, serious= large sensor with the ability to change lens, they should not cross shop GH4 and A7S? Don't people define their needs and then go out shopping for all the cameras that fit that need?

G1Houston they published a 16 page Comparison Review between the A7s and GH4 a couple of months ago. What value is there in regurgitating the identical information verbatim in this review?

Surely some basic level of comparison against the GH4's direct competition is warranted?

You're telling me no one is interesting in knowing how much better the video image quality is compared to an E-M1, A6000 or CaNikon enhusiast camera? Because these are the questions constantly raised by prospective ILC owners on PHOTOGRAPHY forums.

DPR have written this review for filmmakers and have completely overlooked that photographers wanting to take video seriously might also have an interest too.

What about focus speed in low light ?(better than any other camera I've used). What about focus speed with none dfd capable lenses? Still very fast from what I've read elsewhere. Ok so DFD might not be all that you expected per Pany's claims, but regardless I'd be surprised if many mirrorless cameras are as fast in aquisition.The AF performance section of this review seems to be unbalanced and lacking in breadth in my opinion. Perhaps you cover these points elsewhere in the review to some degree, but why not in the AF section?

It is the tracking we all want to know but that is the point you are not going to test? Do you think it is more interesting to see if it does shoot at -4 eV as opposed to -2 eV? Or do you already have data on that, but did not add it here (so no extra testing is required in which case I understand).

"The GH4 also has one of the smartest combinations of touchscreen and viewfinder we've seen. The option exists to allow you to conintue to use the touchsceen to position the AF point while looking through the viewfinder. More importantly, you get to choose whether touching the screen makes the AF point jump to the corresponding position in the viewfinder (Exact mode) or whether it merely moves from its current position, based on the direction you swipe your finger (Offset mode)."

This feature is already present in the fabulous (and often underrated) GX7, I am a left eye shooter who has always enjoyed framing slightly below eye level, and this feature in combination with the tilting viewfinder is just beyond awesome, they should advertise on that much more. Panasonic AND Olympus have some of the cleverest cameras on the market, cameras that truly help photographers improving their skills. I have been undergoing a 365 project with various m43 cameras over the past year and it was an excellent exercise : https://plus.google.com/photos/+PierreAcobas/albums/6061924684372111537?authkey=CPn11-Pfk6SSBw

I had been considering this idea for some years now and am very pleased to see it become available.Unfortunately the GH4 or even GX7 are not my type of camera as I am looking for something smaller. I just hope this feature finds its way into the GMx cameras.

Same here, but the problem is in 6mo there will be other stuff out. My first thought is the NX1. larger sensor with 28mp, still has 4k video, and the lenses are very high quality yet inexpensive. Im not sure I wouldn't actually rather have the NX1, and it's $200 cheaper. 153 cross type focus points sounds nice too.

GoneMirrorless: I don't think that means much, it can still be essentially the same sensor with beefed up readout circuitry. (Adding: for example, I think there's a consensus that the sensors in the GX7 and GM1 are essentially the same, but the GM1 does a faster readout when using the electronic shutter - though by sacrificing a couple of bits.)

At Photokina Panasonic said to me that the LX100 had the GX7's sensor. The GH4's sensor is based on the same design but tweaked slightly I believe. Most likely for longer 4K recording times with less heat.

I wondered because the GH4 looked sharper in the studio shots, even though both cameras have nearly the same resolution and were mounted with the Oly 45mm 1.8. So didn't know if maybe a different AA filter was making the difference...or different copies of the lens...

There is strong evidence that there is a relatively high sample variation with the lens. It is a cheap lens, after all. For studio shots, scrutinized under 100% and more, it is probably not the best option. It is rather sad that DPR has replaced with it the venerable Oly 2.0/50mm SHG lens....

Panasonic need to look at the WiFi connectivity and find better ways to make it better. and then can implement for all Panasonic Cameras. do it once very seriously and then Panasonic can just reuse it for other cameras too

Anyone that can compare and comment on whether the WiFi UI and workflow in the GH4 is any improved from the GX7? I've found using WiFi on the GX7 - especially connecting to a new device - to be clumsy at best.

I find it very interesting that DSLR's get dinged if they don't do video well, yet when they do they dinged as more of a video than a still camera. A full frame sensor like the A7S has no basis of comparison to MFT any more than the Samsung NX1 with APC would have just because it has 4K capability. I have owned both the A7S and the GH4 and they are very different cameras; and, in my opinion did not belong in the original comparative format this review started. I thank DPR for listening to the readers and publishing this excellent review without comparison to the A7S.

The A7s is a very useful PJ's camera I think. The stills quality appears to be excellent and really very little (and nothing at the same price) can touch those high ISO shots.The comparison widget in this review shows just how poor the GH4 is at high ISO when side by side with the A7s.

@quailoaksphoto -- Well, I'm agreeing with you there. I'm not saying the comparison was a good idea, but since they broke off the GH4 from that and did a real review, it seems logical they should do the same with the a7S. Of course, they are quite different. They aren't even in the same price bracket, but there wasn't really a better place for me to ask that question.

Just noticed a couple of small mistakes in the comparison chart above - you call the GH3 "GM3" - and the GH3 actually does support time code. Trivial, I know. Thanks for giving the camera a full review, I know you got some stick (Brits will understand) for your comparison with the A7S.

I'll go and look for those errors immediately. Thanks for pointing it out.

I must admit I still don't fully understand why publishing this separately from the a7S makes so much of a difference, but if separate reviews are what our readers want, then that's what we'll try to provide.

Because it focusses on the cam and that makes it easier for some to focus. When you are simply not interested in the comparison, you need to filter that part out constantly. It is just annoying. Having said that: I think most of us actually hoped for some more indepth information. I noted below that DFD, as you noted yourself, was revolutionairy yet it doesn't get the throrough look at it. We expected that (well: I hoped so). You already told us that dpreview simply is lacking resources to do this. Yet this is what people hoped to get from a seperate review: more attention for the Gh4, not just a piece ripped out of the same review and then presented on its own..

I'm not sure what more I could have said about DFD. The technology itself seems to work (the camera refocuses quickly and accurately as the subject moves in the Z axis), but, despite trying, we couldn't get the camera to lock onto subjects reliably enough for that capability to be the real-world advantage that the technology promises.

@RickPick - it was always my intention of including separate conclusions and scores. But either way, I'm hoping that people find things to enjoy or to interest them in this review. Sorry it took so long.

@Richard .. Jorginho has a great point there. it focusses on a single cam for the most part. i have also say i really like that you are rolling out parts of those reviews before the whole thing is finished, which is really nice when looking for guidelines.

and another thing: we are reaching a point of maturity in digital camera design and just like back in the days of film a camera wouldnt become "unusable" because the follow-up was released. pros in particular almost always had more than one system to get a job done, the right one for that system.

by now we can have the same in digital. i shoot FX down to 1/1.7" sensors often side by side because the various systems have their particular strengths. to reflect that i would appreciate something like a new section in the reviews focussing on that: e.g. what's a GH4 doing with C-AF in comparison to some obvious (a7s, xt1, ..) and not so obvious (D750, 7D2) peers.

as hard as we try we dont have access to the amount of cams you have. =)

(cont.) ..and maybe that extra section might be as one of those biased and opiniated articles we have seen recently. clearly marked as such they provide an awesome point of view because they divert from the pure technical thing to something more tangible and closer to the heart of a lot photographers and also the source of a lot of the more heavy discussions around here and everywhere:

@ Richard...if you really tested it, you could have made some really valuable comments on DFD and Panasonics current lens lineup.I don't know which lens you used, but my 35-100 f2.8 with C-AF focusses on birds etc really well. My 100-300 does not. The 45-175 however did and the 45-200 again was no match for the DFD. It failed. It is also nice to see how important DFD + lens is as a combinaiton. So would Oly lenses work? I used the 45 f1.8 and yes it worked. It worked better than the two bad Panny ones above. So your readers would not only know about the theoretical part, but also the practical part. Like I said (and I can show it): I did AF-c with the GH4 at ISO 25600 in pitch dark shooting cars that drove straight away from me. Teh thing CDAF like systems love to hate. And it had a 50% hitrate. I think that is pretty impressive.

Richard: many people are committed to/locked into a system, and what they care about is whether to upgrade or not inside the same system (and being tempted by another system is something they want to avoid, including for pragmatic financial reasons). There's a readership for both kinds of review (the geek in me loves comparative reviews), but only comparative reviews have a segment of your readership with negative feelings about them. For compacts and cameras with integrated lens where people don't get locked in, I think everyone is ok with comparative reviews.

Wish I had that luxury to have a separate camera for large prints!Currently have an RX10, pretty nice for 1080P especially with the new XAVC-S codec, But I want to get a GH4 so I can shoot 4K, so you don't think that you could print fairly consistent large prints with a GH4, with good lens's?

I agree. I use the D800, especially when I anticipate cropping. The D800 is a heavy beast and I hate hauling it to remote landscape shoots with heavy lens. If I don't need large prints, IMO. I get wonderful still IQ from the GH4, with the added ability to take incredible video, far better the beast, D800.

gskolenda, while the resolution of the GH4 can't compete with the 36mp Sony sensors, the GH4/3 can make some damn fine large prints. I've sold 6ft prints from both of these cameras and they look great even up close. No there is not as much fine detail, but they still look great and I don't think the clients would have come back for more if they didn't think so too.

I suppose you are right concerning the 4K, but, really, Nikon is the best DSLR line in my view when it comes to pure still image quality. Panasonic conversely, has a storied history of challenges when it comes to handling of the nuances of colors and a notoriously flawed approach to noise reduction.

Here's an excerpt from TheImagingResource website review of the GH4, " Hue. The Panasonic GH4 shifts orange toward yellow and cyan toward blue, but most other hue shifts are quite minor. The typical Panasonic yellow to green shift and desaturation is still present, though not as pronounced as some prior Lumix models. The GH4's mean "delta-C" color error after correction for saturation is 5.34 for JPEGs at the base ISO of 200 (100 is an extended ISO). That's about average these days, and color error remains quite stable throughout the ISO range except at the highest ISO setting where it jumps to 6.51. Hue is "what color" the color is." And, perhaps more telling of differing opinions, "While the Panasonic GH4 certainly brings lots of upgrades in terms of video capabilities, it's not altogether much different from the GH3 in terms of still image quality. Housing a similar 16MP sensor..."

Eh....are you talking RAW or JPG. RAW: sensor was the problem. Solved with GH2 at lower ISO. JPG: used to be a sensor + Panny problem. With the GH3 if there was a problem it was Panny's, because I have the identical sensor in my Oly and it did not have any problem. With GH4 I still favour Oly a slight bit, but it is very close and even depends on what I shoot...

The High ISO terrible colours are gone, at least to my mind. Much much improved.

lol, who cares ?? this review is so desperately late that it is utterly meaningless. Every single cam site out there has made reviews I guess a year ago, its a cam widely used in productions.

Using energy on this is close to a joke. It just highlights the speed issue on this site. It seems to be very bad use of the time that so obviously is in short demand. Using the time on a current and newer release would make much more sense.

And dont get me wrong its a super relevant cam to review, but at this point in time its a waste of energy

Because, in context of camera reviews, dpreview is still one of, if not the most highly regarded review website. For those that like to have more data, this late review is in no way meaningless and its not like every GH4 that will sell has already been sold.

@jagge .. the GH4 is a camera that is valid for years to come, so the more thorough the review the better.

are you really using the lack of an dpreview review to go out and look at / rent / buy any camera? you could have gotten your early adopters medal / patch since months. along with all the issues. make the math.. if those are it worth to you, just order the cam and drop the money. maybe just return or resell it if it doesnt work out.if it aint worth it to you, no amount of review will change that i guess. ;)

Nope. The GH5 will render the GH4 a paperweight in or about 2016. Same as all digital cameras end up being paperweights - anyone who stumps up $10k for a Leica is just buying an even more expensive paperweight...!

@MPA1 .. most users will struggle to reach the artistic limits of the GH4 if they shouldnt have bought something else - wether be it a medium format (resolution), a FX pro-body (C-AF speed) or a broadcast/cinematic camera (movies) - in the first place.

so i call the 80/20 rule on it.. it will solve more than 80% of all reallife problems and only 20% or less of it's users will be better than and limited by the camera in their artistic expression.

harsh words maybe, but nonetheless the reality of any art. at some point in time tools reach a grade of maturity only a few will ever surpass. FX DSLRs have reached that point some years ago, DX DSLRs followed partly (but just because manufacturers were doing a half-a** job in development), the mirrorless are doing it right now. sony, fuji, olympus, panasonic all dropped real cameras the last year that can be used without regrets till they fall apart.

@MPA1No really... the Nikon D7000 still takes the same great photos it did when it came out to universal acclaim. It didn't suddenly stop taking good photos because the D7100 came out. Same goes for the GH4 and whatever its successor is.

If the GH4 had the Olympus 5 axis stabilization it would be the dream camera for many, many people. As Jorginho points out it is a fantastic stills camera already, and at the moment the best ILC for video in its price range.

No one knows jkoch2. There have been some rumors of Oly working on a 4K firmware update for the EM-1 but that turned out to either be an internal test at Olympus for future products, or just a hack photoshop job. My guess is they are working on it, and I'm sure they will only put it out in their cameras if they can retain their excellent IBIS.

Until that time, it would be nice to at least have 1-minute 4K recording for 4K photo stills and at least 1080p quality of a Panasonic GX7.

I'd put the GH4 on a par with the E-M1 for stills shooting (though I do slightly prefer the E-M1's 2x2 interface). It's less clear-cut against the X-T1, but there's still not a lot in it.

Our scoring system can't really cope with just how much better the GH4 is at video than the other cameras in its class, so it's not safe to assume that it would score lower than its peers, if video isn't important to you.

SO...Richard has spoken ;-) All this downplaying of Gh4 as a stills cam. I love it! This thing is a machine. fantastic. May be XT1 and EM1 are as good, both user groups seem really happy with it too. As fond of it as I am with my GH4. But it is not because of the video.

It's even better to play with the cameras in a camera store. I originally considered getting a D7100 or a Sony A7. Then I played with those and an EM-10. After evaluating the cams for many different aspects besides just IQ, I ended up walking out with an EM-10.

i find most astonishing that the Panasonic G6 is just a small GH4 with a few less buttons, a slightly less powerful cpu and lacking some video-tools. but it spits out the same quality of still images at almost the same rate and precision.

hence i declare the G6 one of the most underestimated camera these days.

PS: fixing the broken studio-testscenes (found two images) and the missing LowLight charts (except iso200) for the G6 would really be cool. =)

G6 has GH2 sensor. It is far behind. I woned both. GH4 is much nicer in each and every way. Far superior AF, certainly with C-AF, much nicer colours, dynamic range and somewhat better noise performance. Weathersealing....A G7 could be called a small GH4 if it had DFD, 4K video but no weahtersealing and may be lower burst rates.

Yes GRUBERND.. the G6 produces the most beautifull stills.. i am astonished what this little gem does.. you are so right that it is underestimated.. in fact i consider it one of modern photography's little secrets.. so well said.

@Jorginho .. comparing the RAW-files, the GH4 still uses the same sensor. grain, noise, structure.. everything is almost pixel-identical to the G6. they even make the exact same drops in quality / gain in noise at the exact same ISOs.

but i have to agree that the pure raw-files dont tell the story about faster and better AF, which is done by the CPU behind the sensor. it's basically the same with the Nikon D3200 and D7100 and probably many other i dont know that well.. they perform differently in hand but only deliver the same reallife results.

and the G6 performs impressively in hand, me thinks.besides - i rarely do JPGs and even less video, so those are marginal side-features of any camera to me. gotta be biased. ;)

Grubernd. Nothing personal, but that is simply not true at all. I only shoot raw. The dynamic range is even better than the one on EPL5 and it is much better than GH2. GH2 and G6 indeed are the same sensor. But the jump came with GH3 (SOny sensor) than GX7 (panny) and then GH4 (a bit better again). It is dynamic range, much better retaining natural colour at higher ISO;s. much better tonality . Somewhat better noise (here the difference is not so big). These are different sensors using a different technology and you can read what is different technically too. Finally: DxO gives you a good indication how much better the RAW out of the GH4 is. I note it best btw at base ISO and a bit up. Which is what most people will be doing the most anyways...

Jorginho.. i wouldnt take your well written comment in any personal way. i have to admit not having used a GH4 (yet). but when i look at the raw files provided here, i see absolutely no reallife difference [edit: to the G6] at isos 800 and up. the low isos might be a tiny bit different, but those were usable already in my not graceful aging pana G2. and that G2 maxes out for everyday use at iso400. my GF5 does the same at iso800. the G6 goes to iso1600 and from all the images i could gather the GH4 doesnt go a third stop higher than that. just my observation.

and dxomarks.. they are way too scientific for reallife usage. their methods seem leave out so many things that make up an image. yes they provide a guideline, but only one. if we would go by dxomarks we wouldnt be shooting much above iso400 on any camera.. ;)

I have the GH1 and its noise performance and most importantly, DR range are just not up to bar with E-PL5. In terms of good values, I would argue E-PL5 and E-PM2 are better than G6 b/c the sensor in those two cameras is just better, and their are cheaper, body only, which you can't even get with G6 in the USA.

Grubernd...I do a lot of weatherphotography. Stormchasing in The NEtherlands also snowchases (yes, driving to blizzards is fun to me! Unfortunately they are rare here). Sunsets of course. So I used these cams side by side and with sunsets the difference was mindblowing to me with the EPL5. I could not believe the difference. Not that it was so big. But when you expect zero difference and you see the highlights are identical where the shadows in the EPL5 are simply dark and the Gh4 are well lit, that is strange to see. And it is a consistent difference. GH2 and EPl5, also with the G1 once (stormchasing in 2012)...G1 os so bad. Ouch. GH2: much better. Epl5...easily better with much nicer colours. GH4: well you know by now. I did expect much better IQ ehn I got Gh2 over G1 and so I was not surprised. EPl5: did not by it for better IQ, so was really surprised how much better it is. GH4...again, over EPl5...nothing expected, but easily visible. DxO seems to be really right I have to say.

It takes around 3-4 seconds for the GH4 (or A7S which is also rated to -4EV) to lock focus in those darkest conditions that you describe.. Its not fast in a literal sense.. But yes it does focus.. So your constant usage of the term "very fast" is misleading and incorrect.

No. I could shoot bursts in pitch dark!! I mean middle of the night car focustracking with burst. 50% of the shots were sharp. A7s is may be as good, can't tell. If -4 eV is even less than that kind of light I fail to see the relevance of it.

JunzInc, do you have any experience with the GH4???I started a thread a while back on this. I was shooting in near darkness and getting focus lock in less than 1/2 second. I was shooting with ISO6400 and a 1/6th second shutter speed! Still, even when switching near to far focus and back, focus lock was very quick.http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53563402

Too bad it is to early to compare the GH4 to the NX1, which will introduce h.265 4k video in a BSI APS-c device that might compete in the same niche. Unfortunately, Samsung has not been quick to send pre-production versions to people who might be able to make competent comparisons. A bit wierd, too, that Panasonic offers a "lite" version of the 4k feature in the FZ1000 and FX100, but not in the GM7. Sony's RX20 (or RX10ii?) will be a catch-up of sorts. Flabbergasted Canon sees "impossible" and Nikon opted out of 4k in the D750. Oly's 5-axis IBIS is tops, but might it be incompatible with 4k?

I think Panasonic is doing a great job of embracing what is working for them and not trying to be the absolute best at everything. Their cameras are great for video and really good for stills. They have great ergonomics and reasonable prices. That really sounds like a recipe for success.

Unfortunately, not enough people know they even make cameras. Their advertising is poor at best. Word of mouth is great but Canon and Nikon have proved that you can support an entire camera line with 1 solid endorsement from a famous athlete or actor.

I would love to see Panasonic make really eye catching commercials like GoPro. Just crowd source the footage from your users.

Canon DSLRs are being used as a Pro video cameras at the events I go to. The video quality from those cameras always looks more like 720p than 1080p. 4K is a pipe dream for them. It is a reality with the GH4.

Panasonic hit a home run with the GH4. Unfortunately, the park was closed to spectators that day so no one knows it.

Everybody in the video world seems to be aware of the GH4. I could be wrong, but I think all the GH cameras have sold very well. I remember waiting six months to get my GH1. I'm not sure the GH4 has the same broad market potential as a GoPro. So I don't think you'd advertise it in the same or even similar way.

Yeah, the price keeps a camera like the GH4 out of many 'consumers' hands but Panny has other models that are not 'professional flagship' models - The GoPro is like 1/4 of the cost and you don't need any $1500.00 lenses with it - So it isn't really the same animal. Advertising won't change the fact that this is not an inexpensive camera by any assessment.Certainly "Everybody in the video world seems to be aware of the GH4" because it is a very unique product (and it HAS BEEN OUT FOR A LONG, LONG TIME) - But Panny makes a few other models that are highly regarded for much less money.The color on the GH1 (skin tones especially) and the low DR made it barely usable as a camera - I still shoot mine a bit, but replaced it with a FF Nikon.

Videographers can rejoice, dedicated still shooters are better served elsewhere. Cool for Panasonic to pick a lane that they can dominate in m43land. The a6000, not renowned for high ISO performance, looks better than GH4 at 1600. That's the rub on m43, close, but always will trail larger sensors.

Disappointed that the review didn't bother to compare the stills capability with the OMD - The assumption is that the OMD is a superior stills shooter, better color, 5 axis IS and a little smaller body...But then I have read that the GH-4 has a little cleaner output, a stop or so perhaps...But to find out we will need to go to a less dismissive review.I believe the entire point of a "Hybrid" camera is to shoot STILLS as well as video...If we remove the video centric pages (and the Meta Bones data??? Included a 'mini-review' on a product not included and not even made by the company that made the camera?? - Say what?) from this review we are left with a very few pages, many of them simply tables of data published almost a year ago by the manufacturer...

@Paul.. so true. and the larger sensors will always trail behind the smaller ones when it comes to stopping motion *and* providing large depth of field.from your comment i have to guess you require highest iso performance. if so you shouldnt compare to mediocre APS-C sensors. ;)

I see it as a great camera for both video and stills. For micro 4/3s camera, the biggest stills negative is the price. The next would be size if compactness matters a lot for you. But other than those two things, (and the second is actually a plus for many) it is a fine stills camera that should be able to hold its own against any m43 camera when it comes image quality and options for taking still images.

@PK...while there is a difference with the best APS_c sensors out there (the SOny ones) it is a small gap. Until 2012, the gap was substantially bigger with NEX7 scoring 82 points in DxO and GH2 60 or so. Nowadays it is 74 vs 83. As the Panny is moreless on par with the EM1, we can see how dpreview looks at this difference (they are not very clear in this review but I did not read it thoroughly): "The E-M1 provides the excellent image quality that you'd expect from a camera of its semi-pro level. Its Four Thirds sensor is smaller than the APS-C imagers of its Nikon D7100 and Canon EOS 70D peers, but we think the difference it makes in real world shooting is hard to spot. You need to put the E-M1 up against a full frame camera to really see a significant difference in image quality."

I would agree, except... the a6000 only looks noticably better when shooting with the great 55mm SEL f1.8 lens. All other lenses are either poor to focus (I'm looking at you Zeiss Touit), or have pretty poor border and corner performance (Sony 35mm 1.8 non SEL version, Sony 16mm f2.8, Sony f4 zooms). I see the allure of the A6000 as a camera body, but the system is just not fully baked yet.

Let me clarify; today's m43 image quality satisfies the needs and expectations of many. Let's face it, m43 has arguably the greatest and most versatile line of mirror-less glass, save for the possibility of Fujifilm's rise to that title. With the best glass, the GH4 provides a good challenge to the better APS-C advanced iterations. As has been pointed out, the performance gap is narrowing. My point is the a $598 Sony a6000 will give you the same, no more, in terms of Raw file image quality, albeit requiring something better than kit lenses. There is no comparison on the video end of things. I am in the group of people that Never use video so, the GH4 is to be respected for its advancements but doesn't motivate me to buy. I owned the GH1, G1, G3, GF-1, GX-1 and they were all nice cameras plagued by the noise that is no longer quite as problematic for the Panasonic sensor.

@Paul Kersey: "My point is the a $598 Sony a6000 will give you the same, no more, in terms of Raw file image quality, albeit requiring something better than kit lenses. " In my opinion there is still a difference in favor of the Sony. Larger sensor area gives you less noise (when downsized to same MP) and better shadow recovery.But m43 is certainly a nice, lightweight choice if you don't need shallow DOF.

This new model along with the Olympus OM-D E-M1 have lost their way in terms of size. They no longer are diminutive cameras that punch above their weight. As such, comparisons to DSLRS becomes inevitable. And when you do that comparison, you have serious completion on the still image side of things(my only interest).

Paul - Even though the newer bodies are a bit larger they are in no way as large as a FF Nikon or Cannon - But most important in terms of size and weight is the difference when including a handful of lenses and a body.The lenses are smaller and cheaper - So the 'kit' is waaaaay smaller even if the bodies are getting (a little) bulkier.

But the bulk of the m4/3 vs FF is still a discussion of the video capabilities of the Sony which has a uniquely small FF body - But again factor in some lenses (imagining that they could be available for the Sony) and the M4/3 is still MUCH smaller as a kit.

Is it safe to assume that this review was written before firmware 2.0 was included? Will the review be updated with firmware 2.0 benefits?

Firmware 2.0 fixes some of the issues with AF and rolling shutter as well as adding multi-aspect ratios for video. No other camera offers the multi-aspect ratio video at any price. That is a huge benefit to get without paying any more money.

As far as I know the Samsung is not out until the middle of Novemberas they were working on a new Firmware,beats me how someone can condemn a camera before its even out!!!!

and Samsung engineers say they are working on firmware,

some people just like to rubbish cameras they troll here quiet often,

post your photos then let us ALL see, put a video on YouTube, show us all the poor focus, poor video, does the GH4 not need a docking station for the 4k video The Samsung does not I wonder why, is it just Panasonic trying to get more monies out of the usersTom G

Who is condemning the NX1? Its main handicap is that Samsung unveiled it at Photokina, but is apparently not ready to ship any to expert testers. Samsung could improve the product with timely feedback. Before alleging troll behavior, it would help to read a real review, since you are clearly under-informed about the GH4.

"However, the a7S's sensor is one of the best low light performers on the market, so you can see it actually out-performs the GH4 by around one stop more than you would generally expect, meaning that the GH4's performance is comparable to the a7S using a sensitivity setting three stops higher."

I checked the 1600/12800 and 3200/25600 comparisons in raw and the A7s was obviously noisier than the GH4. If they are basing this on jpegs then I submit that the statement is only applicable to the JPEG engine as they shot it. If on raw, then I would like to see the examples on which the statement is based, since the two I checked do not support the 3 stops statement.

The A7S has nothing whatsoever to do with the GH4. I have owned both. Forget cropping 12 MP sensor. Forget stills with large prints. And frankly who cares about blue sky in night photography. The A7S probably is a great B cam for wedding videography, but regardless of low light performance the moire is terrible. You can find reviews with RAW without NR and can do your own comparison's. The jpeg engine on the A7S is better. Remember sharpening is not the same thing as detail, and the RAW detail of GH4 is far better... remarkably better as long as your shoot below ISO 6400.

m43 is the best! when it is not m43 don't bother. In fact their should be a law forbidding all other formats, why it should even be forbidden to talk about other formats. There are none. Lock up people who talk about other formats. They are dangerously insane.

Thanks for the review (I wish it came earlier)GH4 has the best grip and button layout (ergonomics) . Very comfortable to use.I do not like Sony 7R's shutter button location. It is on the top and there is a dial in the place where the shutter button should be. I have to bend my finger to use it.

About AF performance I can say that GH4 has best AF from all mirrorless cameras , have tested samsung nx1, fuji xt1,olympus em-1, about c-sf fastest is samung but focus accuracy is very low not very useful , olympus is a bit faster, but focus accuracy not as good as gh4, xt1 is very difficult to lock first shot, its slower and accuracy a bit lower. about s-af GH4 is fastest and also very accurate.I have testes on leica 42.5mm f1.2 and oly. 75mm f1.8 at wides aperture also at difficult lighting conditions.

I am coming from 1dx , nikon d810 and gh4 is closing the gap very well on AF..Only about BIFs there is no lens with fast enough AF , and 100-300 is way too slow for BIFs , so I wouldn't spend time on that.

About locking af , never had problem , I think on Dpreview example of biker was too far, head too small on frame and camera got confused with busy background, not good example in my opinion, I have used AF point and tracking was just excellent , not 1dx but not miles worse also..The nx1 I tested on photokina and it was very poor at tracking, lot of miss focused images.

Kristian, the NX1 is clearly a pre-prod camera and basing your opinion on a test at photokina can't be conclusive at this time. Well see when final production cameras and final firmware enter the foray. Regardless, I believe you about the GH4's capabilities.

kristian1 - this isn't the only testing we did. We had the same problem when trying to use AF tracking in video mode and neither of the two people who tried it could get it to consistently lock onto subjects. We can only report our experiences.

Not sure what they mean by "No 1080 video from 4K crop region to minimize aliasing". If you shoot 1080 with Ex Tele Mode you get 1080 using a pixel for pixel center crop which certainly seems like the minimal aliasing mode they are looking for. Should be better than cropping the 4K image because the compression per pixel would be less.

I assumed that "Panasonic, in its 1080 mode, is pixel-binning - combining data from multiple pixels before reading them out" meant that multiple pixels from the 4K crop were being averaged in some way to create 1080 pixels - which would make it a variant of oversampling. Selecting only a single pixel would be decimating the input image and practically guarantee aliasing on high-freq edges.

So is this camera able to focus follow birds or aircraft or motorsports better than existing models or not. There are many other scenarios encountered by action shooters other than bicycles coming directly at us. There must be plenty of erratic flying Gulls and Terns in the Seattle area to test with a moderate Telephoto.

There are an infinite number of things that could be AF tested, but testing all of them would take an infinite amount of time.

I experienced tremendous difficulty getting the GH4 to lock onto subjects, which makes me skeptical about its ability to track birds, but I'm not in a position to test it, so I couldn't be certain. The bike shots are simply meant to show how the camera behaves with a subject moving in two axes at a moderate speed and this is meant to give an idea about which aspects a camera does well and badly. It's not intended as the final word on AF, though.

I have done this many times. It is good, but not exceptional. It seems to strongly depend on the lens used. With my 35-100 f2.8 it does a very good job. With the 45-175 is is almost identical and as good. With the 100-300 you run into serious trouble as the lens cannot keep up.I have said this many times on the m43 forum: all we need it s 100-300 MKII which can track as quick and solid as the 35-100 and preferably with some better glass (although that is good already).45-200 btw, which I have too: as bad as the 100-300...

Thanks you both. I shoot action and birds with no tripod. I use a Dslr and heavy lenses that keep me from getting as far from the car as I would like to get, not to mention the the back and arm fatigue. I use M43 for everything else. A better 100-300mm would add immeasurably to my enjoyment of photography.I mention the cyclists because they are a favorite of camera testers but they are really huge well lit subjects that almost any camera can capture.

Well...I have the EPL5 and the first thing I noticed on my first shootout with the two is the visibly, significantly better Dynamic range of the GH4. I also took the two to shoot noctilucent clouds (and that is really low light, but I restricted it to ISO 800 mostly). I was really disappointed in the EPL5. In fact at first I was sure I made some huge error, but I did not. At least to ISO 800 and in that situation, the GH4 seems a step up. It is in other circumstances with better light (and no extreme DR) where I cannot note the difference. May be the Oly in RAW has a little nicer colour, but that is really minimal if it is there at all.

I never expected any real difference btw, so I was very surprised. DxOmark does show better DR but other than that: nothing. So...??

Well, many current video cameras use a much smaller sensor than the GH4 and yet are many times the size! Sensor size is not everything in spite of current "informed" opinion. You need to actually be able to handle the thing!

Funny thing about this. I'm still OK shooting my 5D3 for video with cinestyle. When there's a real option for a High Efficiency Video Codec (HEVC) for 4k distribution and exporting from FCPX or Premiere, then I'll invest in 4k. Oh yeah, and I'll need a monitor that supports it natively. I'm sure Canon will eventually have it and an EVF option to boot. No need to dump all of your Canon gear, lenses, or equipment just yet.

The content of the review was outstanding. “Perfect” in my opinion. A few hour delay on getting a few pages to load is inconsequential as long as the content of the article is this good. We have waited so long for this review already. Why not wait a little while longer for such a thorough review?

"...We have waited so long for this review already."It makes you wonder why they bothered as all the details of this camera have been widely known and have been available for months and months...Of course if they found a single thing to tell us that was not already known...But the review was data thin and information absent - And after almost a year, the review gets published before it is ready for prime time - LOL

Could you have done a better job, faster? I couldn’t and I make money off of doing reviews like this. Sure most of the information in the review is already known. However, it is all compiled into a very readable set of pages.

I couldn’t take the time to write a review like this any faster than they did so I for one understand why it took so long.

Panasonic does JPEGs really well. They are sharp yet don't have the thick sharpening halos like certain other brands. They should stand up to large size prints for those who don't want to deal with raw.

The 4/3rds sensor does struggle a bit when the ISO is turned up but other than that, it is good stuff.

Nice, some really good stuff from the likes of Pany, Sony and Fuji , Oly who are daring to innovate. I still wonder how long the big two will keep "milking" their customers with incremental updates and not truly innovating. i am a Canon user myself, but if it was not for the investments made already over 5K and I am a hobbyist, only thing preventing me to make the switch is my own inertia, sell the curent gear put together a new system etc. but always been amazed and lured to what Sony and Panasoic is doing in this place.

BTW, good review DPR though I almost did not care if GH4 was reviewed already or not.,.so late in getting this out.

"...though I almost did not care if GH4 was reviewed already or not.,.so late in getting this out."

The review was thin, very thin and quite uninformative as all that info (AND MORE) has been out for a very, very long time...Compare to the GH-1 review 20 pages to this poorly published review which is 12 pages...Of course the GH-1 didn't have 4k vid, new focus system, touch screen, weather proofing...No, this review was late, poorly published and not worth the wait.

to be fair the GH1 review was done before the studio comparison widgets were introduced. For example there are 7 pages of studio comparisons in the GH1 review (compared to 1 page for the widget in the GH4). This is also true for other parts of the review. We stopped doing 30 page reviews because no one was looking at pages 2-29... we do more testing than before but try to use smarter and more concise ways of presenting our results.

SImon, you should really assess the cam and its users better I think. The nr of pages is irrelevant, what the cams brings simply means you need x-number of pages to review it.

When you do note DFD is revolutionairy it is well worth investing more time in that part than with other cams with no appreciable difference in AF for instance. What you get now it s that you "guess" it won't be usable for BIF instance. You should have (extensively) tested it. That is what Dpreview stands for or stood for: high quality, no corner cutting review. For such a well spec'd and in some point srevolutionairy cam 12 pages indeed seems really not much. The OMD EM1 got 21 pages and it has not got much to write about when it comes to video.....and not much on the GH4 spec wise (may be 43 lens use is one exception)...

Jorginho - we did test the AF fairly extensively, we've just illustrated it with this particular example. I tried using tracking AF in a number of situations, with different subjects, indoors and out, and found it struggled.

But, since I didn't shoot any birds in flight, I can't comment with complete certainty - it's possible that having just sky in the background is the necessary difference to make it more reliable.

However, even testing extensively doesn't mean testing exhaustively - there are too many variables and shooting situations to convincingly test every one of them. And for every one we did, someone could name another and say we haven't done it properly.

GH4 with the right lens tracks well. I have it and used it in the middle of the night on cars passing by. I needed ISO 25600 there to stop them from blurring but it got 50% of the shots sharp. I also did the same with birds. Again: the 35-100 (and 45-175) track well. The sad thing is that the 100-300 lens, which is optically better than the 45-175 for instance does not track well at all. It is a huge disppointment. And I would like everyone to punnish Panny really hard to not buy any GH4 untill they come up with a very good 100-300 mm lens (or a faster lens but with 100-250 mm or so FL). Panny has declined to come up with good long FL zooms. Almost all new lenses are below 100 mm...such a shame with such a good focussing system I think.

The camera store puts the GH4 ahead of all other mirrorless cams for tracking with their real world tracking shootout video. It beats the EM-1, A6000, and XT-1. Of course, it doesn't match a D4S, but what does?

If you need even better tracking, where getting the shot at the right moment is more important than anything else, you could just take a 4K still grab.

The problem here is the term "tracking".This seems to be also a problem for a lot of reviewers. Switch the camera to C-AF without tracking and it is able to continuously focus on fast moving objects with medium burst fairly easily.The photographer has to track the subject in that he has to keep the focus field(s) over the subject.This was explained several times in a lot of forums.In my opinion is the GH4 one of the best "tracker" so far.The mode C-AF with tracking is meant for slow agile subjects and for certain video sequences, has nothing to do with the same term in the DSLR world.

More about gear in this article

Panasonic's new GH5 flagship will be hitting the streets soon, joining the GH4 in the company's line of video-centric cameras. With our eye on video features, we take a look at the ten biggest differences between these two cameras. Read more

PocketWizard is bringing its FlexTT5 TTL radio flash control system to Panasonic. At launch only the GH4 and DMW-FL360L and DMW-FL580L flashes will be TTL compatible; future firmware updates will add support for other models. Read more

Panasonic has announced a firmware update for the Lumix DMC-GH4, bringing Post Focus, 4K Photo and burst shooting with flash to the video-centric mirrorless camera. The update will be available at the end of March, free of charge. Read more

Updated: Panasonic has announced the Lumix DMC-GH4R, a Europe-only variant of the GH4 that offers a Log gamma curve and unlimited 4K video recording. There will also be a paid-for firmware update adding the V-Log L Photo Style to the GH4 - a super-flat tone curve designed to capture the maximum dynamic range for greater flexibility while color grading. Read more

The Panasonic Center in Osaka has installed a photo booth that uses 120 Lumix DMC-GH4 cameras to create a three-dimensional impression of the occupants, which can then be turned into a plaster figurine. Panasonic claims that what makes its booth stand out is that the 'scan' is created in just 1/1000sec. That means the subjects can be in motion and the image will still be sharp. Read more

Latest in-depth reviews

The Nikon Z6 may not offer the incredible resolution of its sibling, the Z7, but its 24MP resolution is more than enough for most people, and the money saved can buy a lot of glass. Find out what's new and notable about the Z6 in our First Impressions Review.

Many cameras today include built-in image stabilization systems, but when it comes to video that's still no substitute for a proper camera stabilization rig. The Ronin-S aims to solve that problem for DSLR and mirrorless camera users, and we think DJI has delivered on that promise.

The SiOnyx Aurora is a compact camera designed to shoot stills and video in color under low light conditions, so we put it to the test under the northern lights and against a Nikon D5. It may not be a replacement for a DSLR, but it can complement one well for some uses.

At its core, the Scanza is an easy-to-use multi-format film scanner. It offers a quick and easy way to scan your film negatives and slides into JPEGs, but costs a lot more than similar products without a Kodak label.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

For the past few weeks, our readers have been voting on their favorite photographic gear released in the past year in a wide range of categories. Now that the first round of voting is over, it's time to pick the best overall product of 2018.

Sony had the full-frame mirrorless market to itself for nearly five years, but it's no longer alone – the Nikon Z6 and Canon EOS R have both arrived priced to compete with the a7 III. We take a head to head to head look at these three cameras.

As if it needed one, the triple-camera smartphone might really be the final nail in the compact camera's coffin. DPR contributor Lars Rehm brought the LG V40 on a hiking trip recently and found it to be a huge leap forward in terms of creative freedom.

Renowned UK-based landscape photographer Nigel Danson has been using DSLRs for years. In this video, created exclusively for DPReview, Nigel discusses his experience using the Nikon Z7 and why he's excited about mirrorless cameras. (Spoiler... beautiful scenery ahead.)

Chinese optical manufacturer Kipon has added the Nikon Z and Canon R mounts to its range of adapters made to attach medium format lenses from Hasselblad, Mamiya, Pentax and others to full frame cameras.